Jeb Corliss’ decision reversed (in part)

I initially wrote about Corliss’ case in my article, BASE Jumping and the Law. In that post, I wrote about how Corliss attempted a jump from the Empire State Building, but was apprehended just as he got over the suicide fence. New York then charged him with reckless endangerment on the theory that had he made the jump, he very well could have hurt people below. This theory was successfully argued by the prosecution in United States v. Carroll, 813 F. Supp. 698 (E.D. Mo. 1993).

Corliss convinced the court that he planned the jump very carefully — so carefully, that nobody could reasonably call his conduct “reckless.” The judge bought it and dismissed the case.

The Appellate Division upheld the dismissal of the first degree reckless endangerment, but that was a pyrrhic victory for Mr. Corliss. The Appellate Division held:

Because the evidence before the grand jury was sufficient to establish the elements of reckless endangerment in the second degree, the motion court should have ordered the reduction of the charge to that offense pursuant to CPL 210.20(1-a), rather than dismissing the indictment entirely. We observe that under CPL 210.20(6), upon entry of such an order the People have several options as to further proceedings. (source)

Share this:

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

This entry was posted on Thursday, March 6th, 2008 at 3:39 pm and is filed under Sports Law. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.